I guess it is OK as long as the attack does not come from above...
I am somewhat surprised that this works. The RPGs usually shoot a stream of hot molten metal in the direction of the target when they explode (yes, I paid good attention during the last episode of Mythbusters). This makes part of the lethality of the RPG.

On a somewhat related note, I just saw this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=E8MbMiBbdtYThe Israelis sure know how to deal with these types of threats.
I do wonder though how that reacts (or hopefully does not react) to normal MG- bullets that would not penetrate the armor of the vehicle.

The 'Iron Curtain' looks attractive. It looks like it could be more responsive and safer than other interceptor systems that use a maneuvering interceptor. Also, that it apparently defeated 4 RPG attacks suggests it may handle more sustained attacks than a magazine of 2,4, etc rockets in a launcher. Top attacks would be as easy to defend against. essentially just turn the array over (a second array).
I'm not surprised that the shaped charge warhead is greatly degraded. The precise shape of the cone of explosive needs to explode in a precise manner to create a penetrating narrow jet. I wonder if this is how the slat armor works. It dents/ deforms the round before its' fuse detonates it, deforming the jet or preventing detonation. If the fuse hits the slat, and successfully detonates, there is greater standoff distance and the jet has to dig through the ~4 inches(?) of steel before proceeding to the hull. The slat may absorb some of the energy and/ or distort the jet. Either mechanism may defeat the RPG with out having nearly the weight of solid armor.

I wonder how this system would work with self forming warheads- they may be formed several feet away from the target. the copper slug may be cut up but it would still have considerable forward momentum and presumably would still take heavy (but not quite as much) armor to stop it. The same may apply to KE perpetrators. In this case the greater standoff interceptor missiles/ mortars may have an advantage, at least for light vehicles. For tanks the near interception may be adequate to prevent armor penetration.

That Iron Fist video just needs someone saying "But wait, there's more! Order now and you'll receive not just one, but TWO..."

On a more serious note... Israel comes up with some pretty good stuff because they have a free society here in the US, but unlike the US, they have a completely different mindset when it comes to technology.

In the US, the mindset is fear of technology. Fear that "what if something goes wrong and it hurts someone?" We completely neglect the fact that in a majority of those cases, it is more dangerous to NOT use the technology than it is to just use it with the inherent risks.

For example, let's say there's a 0.1% chance of something going wrong and killing someone accidentally with the technology every time it's used. But there's a 12% chance that someone gets killed very time you're in a situation that requires that technology.

Assuming the tech is 75% effective, that means that if you fired that system 1000 times, you'd save 750 lives, and kill someone accidentally once.

But in the US, that "once" would end people's careers, create a scandal in the government, etc. The media would play it up like whoever made the technology is Satan himself.

In Israel, the mindset is "It might kill someone? Ok, people are already dying because it's not being used, let's use it."

Honestly, it's like that with everything here in the US. If Henry Ford invented the Automobile today, there's so many Government agencies & regulations that I absolutely guarantee you we wouldn't have the automobile EVER.

D Tibbets wrote:The 'Iron Curtain' looks attractive. It looks like it could be more responsive and safer than other interceptor systems that use a maneuvering interceptor. Also, that it apparently defeated 4 RPG attacks suggests it may handle more sustained attacks than a magazine of 2,4, etc rockets in a launcher. Top attacks would be as easy to defend against. essentially just turn the array over (a second array).

My reading of that was they mounted 4 different units 4 different times and each unit andled the incoming round with that final effect on the door. Did I miss something that indicated it was a multi-round capable system?

D Tibbets wrote:The 'Iron Curtain' looks attractive. It looks like it could be more responsive and safer than other interceptor systems that use a maneuvering interceptor. Also, that it apparently defeated 4 RPG attacks suggests it may handle more sustained attacks than a magazine of 2,4, etc rockets in a launcher. Top attacks would be as easy to defend against. essentially just turn the array over (a second array).

My reading of that was they mounted 4 different units 4 different times and each unit andled the incoming round with that final effect on the door. Did I miss something that indicated it was a multi-round capable system?

That was not my impression. It looks like the defensive warheads are mounted in series along the rail, each fixed and shooting straight downward. The system would resist multiple rounds efficiently, so long as sequential his are not at the same point. I don't know if there is any overlap in the counter explosive rounds. In the teast they may have reloaded the expended round between tests, but that would be dishonest when claiming multihit protection ( whith the understanding that a RPG would be highly unlikely to hit in the same vertical plane twice.

As far as safty, the mostly (?) Isreali designed Trophy type systems where an intercepting grenade is launched to destroy a warhead perhaps at ranges of many feet and with an omnidirectional blast, this is indeed a danger to exposed shoulders. Perhaps less important in a tank, though multiple crew may have their heads exposed if they are not buttened up. With infantry fighting vehicles though, you expect the dismounted crew to be often outside the vehicle and in close proximity, and exposed to this friendly fire. This is different than a battlefield taxi like the M113, where the dismounted crew deploy further away from the vehicle (the vehicle remains in the rear). I don't know what the relative risk would be , but I speculate it would not be small. Of course this has to be balanced against the value of the vehicle and internal crew. If you can protect the crew inside and to a degree outside the vehicle, it makes sense to favor a system that does this. Next you need to consider modern battlefields and the reluctance to inflict collateral damage to noncombatants. With asymmetric warfare, and frequent convoy or patrol attacks in cities, this system would have additional advantages, at least against RPGs. Larger antitank missles with larger warheads would dillute the damage by the defensive warhead.